Sunday, September 14, 2008
Seattle, WA - On September 14th, the Seattle Times published an editorial regarding the recent pit bull attack and whether Seattle should consider regulating "fighting" dog breeds. The writers specifically point out that victims and would-be victims have the strongest argument of all. They conclude that, "The control of pit bulls is a question to be resolved in favor of public safety and not in favor of the breed or the breeders."
When Pit Bulls Attack...Read: Article in full
By the Times Staff, The Seattle TimesThe mauling by pit bulls of a 71-year-old woman in SeaTac raises the issue of whether "fighting" dog breeds should be allowed in urban areas.
September 14, 2010
Pit-bull owners argue vehemently otherwise -- that it is the errant owners who are the problem, not the dogs. When a savage attack happens -- and the victim, Huong Le, had her arm and wrist crushed and both ears ripped off -- other dog owners will blame the owner. In the SeaTac case, both pit bulls were males, and the owner had not neutered them. That was his fault. He had not kept the dogs in his yard or on leash, which was also his fault. Therefore, don't blame the dogs.
For a pit-bull owner, this may sound reasonable. For the public, it does not. The person confronted by a mean dog is not worrying about the cause of the dog's bad attitude. His concern is not fairness to the dog. His concern is the dog. Human safety and civil streets require restrictions on dangerous dogs. Such restrictions exist already -- in SeaTac and in most places. The pertinent question is whether restrictions should be based on a dog's behavior only, or also on its breed...
09/14/08: Coverage of the Seattle Area Pit Bull Attack and Activism